I am a long term resident of Milperra - moved here in 1990. This development is wrong for many reasons. It borders an industrial estate. It will front Bullecourt Ave which at the moment chokes up in the afternoon peak - from 4 - 5 pm traffic crawls westbound down Bullecourt. 400 more homes will only increase that traffic density. The southern part of the site bordering the m5 is flood prone. The site containers hundreds of mature trees that will be lost. The land was "gifted" to the State Gov't to be held inperpetuity as an educational institution, how does a developer gain a right to land bequeathed in such a way ? The bottom line here is greed - greed by the developer - to make a profit for themselves at a cost to me and my community. We have no road infrastructure to cope with this development and we have no public transport infrastructure to deal with more residents. The site should be kept for what it is - a place of learning, either a Uni or a TAFE or better still consolidate the public schools in the area. I have not spoken to a single resident of Milperra that supports this, all the people that live here know what a disaster both the site clearing, site preparation and building of this slum estate will be to our suburb. Traffic is bad at the moment - how bad will it get with the addition of heavy machinery and tip trucks (for 4 years). All this madness for what ? a profit to the developer and the creation of a slum. No thanks :(
All recent comments on applications from Canterbury-Bankstown Council, NSW
Residential blocks sized and designed to hold single house dwellings are not suitable for medium density, apartment block development. Oversized buildings on relatively small blocks of land create a whole variety of problems, including tiny, poorly designed "boutique" units, noise, traffic and the weakening of community. Too much of this has been allowed to happen already, with neighbourhood concerns ignored.
This is a really narrow block for such a development. Street scape would be hideous.
The overshadowing to neighbouring properties would be significant.
Earlwood is a nice leafy suburb with lots of single house dwellings. And if this development is allowed it'll start being the awful apartment central like the development around canterbury and devalue the surrounding homes.
It's surprising this is this even being entertained as an option and not simply knocked back.
We as surrounding neighbours object to this development.
This level of development should not be allowed in beautiful Earlwood
No we don't want more Duplexes, glad the council refused it
No thank you. Enough duplexes. You guys just don't seem to get it. Do I need to run for council to get you guys to understand that residents have had enough of wannabe developers abusing our streets by putting up cheap duplexes for quick cash?
I agree with Sara. Greenacre looks terrible now. Too many duplexes.
Stop approving these. We don't want more duplexes. Sick of wannabe developers buying properties to demolish and put a cheaply built duplexes on there. We have an oversupply of duplexes in Greenacre and they aren't attractive for the street.
I think some thought should be put into the final design, finishes and overall aesthetic of this duplex so it doesn't end up looking exactly like the neighbouring ones. There are so many two-storey duplexes going up in Greenacre we risk the area looking like a planned estate, rather than reflecting the history and diversity that the area actually has.
Hey people, find some details before you comment. The two trees being cut down are a hibiscus and a camellia, neither of them particularly large or native.
They are being replaced threefold with native lillypilly trees.
Don’t just focus on the headline, read the documents
Hey people, find some details before you comment. The two trees being cut down are a hibiscus and a camellia, neither of them particularly large or native.
They are being replaced threefold with native lillypilly trees.
Don’t just focus on the headline, read the documents
Stop cutting down trees. We have the most beautiful trees we planted 52 years ago. They provide a haven for the birds owls etc. The house opposite was sold and all the trees cut down it is now bare such a tragedy. I reported it to Council and no action was taken.
Janet Stankiewicz please do not question my honesty. You have not lived in my house since I purchased it 27 years ago nor been in my backyard.
I find it very hard to believe that people planting trees in their gardens have had an affect on solar panels and the ability to grow vegetables. There are many, many locals who do not want any more development. Many of us want more trees to beautify our area which has been ruined in some parts by many apartment buildings without any green spaces and with only minimal plantings.
I agree with Mr Harvey. There are too many people from outside the area complaining. There are 20-30 of us in Canterbury who were hoping for redevelopment, and suddenly all these people we had never heard of and never seen around the area started lobbying hard to stop redevelopment in our long neglected area. Council pays too much attention to noisy outsiders, and not enough to actual residents.
Deirdre, really? Do you actually live in the area? I agree with your general sentiment. We do need to ensure there is an abundance of trees, green space etc for the very reasons you put forward. But... you make this glib response to this simply because a person wishes to remove what are most likely nuisance trees, on that basis without supporting your opinion with any facts or even awareness of the context. I have lived only a couple of blocks away from this property for nearly 30 years, When I purchased my home I looked forward to the sunlight it would provide my garden and the opportunity to live more sustainably by making a considerable investment installing solar panels. Thanks to ill-conceived platnings of in some cases, oranamtal species of trees, I no longer have sufficient sunlight in my back yard to grow vegetables and my solar panels are becomnig useless. Please consider making informed comments.
Please don’t remove more trees. As trees are removed in Sydney, as is happening quickly, our temperature goes up. It's especially problematic as concrete and hard surfaces prevail. What kind of city do you want to live in. Soon Sydney will be unliveable. Already that is happening in western Sydney and we are close.
The environmental plan states that the development meets the requirements for Warringa council. That is nice but what does that have to do with Canterbury. Have we merged?
This to me suggests that the developer has merely cut and pasted a previous DA to another council. I find it hard to believe the documents supplied have been properly prepared.
What assurance do we have as rate payers that all requirements of Canterbury council have been checked to ensure compliance.
council needs to inspect the builders parking arrangements every day they are working at the site as it is adjacent to a no parking area.the builders at number 8 sandakan just park out the front of the pro[erty because they remove the no parking sign and they then feel they can park there legally. council needs to become proactive with this problem rather than reactive.
Go ahead with the second dwelling but please make sure you have enough off street parking.
Further to my comment above, work has commenced on this property already. In fact, renovations commenced before these documents were lodged.
In addition to the work commencing, the hours of renovation include late afternoons and weekends as well. I was of the understand there were regulations around the hours around when work could take place.
I would be grateful if someone could get back to me on these questions together with a copy of the proposed plans.
Thank you.
No duplexes. No thanks.
Very sad such an architecturally interesting and heritage building will be lost to the area.
We are located directly behind this property and have received no notification or details, by the certifier, about the proposed work.
My understanding of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (amended in 2014) is that "Under clause 130AB of the Regulation, notice of a CDC application must be given to neighbours 14 days prior to the approval of the CDC by the certifying authority, which may be either the council or the accredited certifier, and the notice must be given to the council if the certifying authority is not the council."
We would like to see the necessary plans and have the opportunity to comment.